The Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings against Ms. Kritika Kaushik alias Hanu and Mr. Naresh Kumar Kaushik, in the case of “Application U/S 482 No. – 1861 of 2024”. The applicants were involved in a legal battle with the State of Uttar Pradesh and an additional complainant, with Ms. Kritika Kaushik being the daughter-in-law of the complainant.
Key Legal Issues
1. Extortion under Sections 384 and 504 IPC:
– The complaint alleged that Naresh Kumar Kaushik demanded Rs. 1 crore from the complainant to return the jewelry allegedly taken by Kritika Kaushik.
– The court examined whether the ingredients of extortion, as per Section 383 IPC, were fulfilled. Specifically, whether there was an intentional act to put the complainant in fear of injury to induce them to deliver any property or valuable security.
2. Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 406 IPC:
– The complainant accused Kritika Kaushik of taking family jewelry to her parental home and not returning it.
– The court assessed if the entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property were present.
3. Criminal Intimidation and Intentional Insult under Section 504 IPC:
– The court reviewed if the intentional insult was likely to provoke the complainant to breach peace or commit an offence.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Extortion and Criminal Breach of Trust
The court found that the necessary ingredients for extortion and criminal breach of trust were not satisfied. In extortion cases, there must be evidence of property delivery under threat, which was absent. Similarly, for criminal breach of trust, the element of entrustment was not convincingly established.
The court noted:
“Since in the present case act of โextortionโ was not concluded as Rs. 5 lacs was not paid, therefore, offence under Section 383 IPC was not made out and consequently offence under Section 387 IPC was also not made out.”
Criminal Intimidation
The court determined that the statements made did not specify a threat that would likely provoke a breach of peace, thus not meeting the criteria under Section 504 IPC.
Intentional Insult
The court highlighted that mere abusive language without the likelihood of inciting a breach of peace does not fall under Section 504 IPC:
“Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence.”
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court concluded that the proceedings were maliciously instituted, possibly to wreak vengeance, as Ms. Kritika Kaushik had already initiated criminal proceedings against her husband and in-laws. Thus, it quashed the complaint and summoning orders.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: Complaint Case No. 3921 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
– Applicants: Ms. Kritika Kaushik alias Hanu and Mr. Naresh Kumar Kaushik
– Opposite Parties: State of Uttar Pradesh and another
– Counsel for Applicants: Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta
– Counsel for Opposite Parties: Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Deepak Kumar Yadav, G.A., Laxmi Narayan Mishra, Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad
